A conventional short message system (SMS) can transmit messages from one user to another. These SMS messages are transmitted over a network comprising several technological components. In a typical scenario, a sending device transmits the message. The system, in turn, transfers the message from one component or unit to another component or unit, until it is finally received by a destination device. In conventional SMS systems, a home location register (HLR) stores the last known location info of a destination device. In conventional SMS systems, however, situations may occur where the destination device is absent and the HLR is not notified. In this scenario, conventional SMS systems continuously attempt to deliver the SMS message to the destination device, despite the fact that the message cannot be delivered. Then, only after the destination device becomes available again (e.g., becomes available or moves to a different location), can the message be delivered. Accordingly, this “retry” process performed by conventional SMS systems consumes bandwidth in times that the message cannot otherwise be delivered.
FIG. 1 illustrates a conventional short message system. The system 100 may comprises a sending device 105, a short message service center (SMSC) 125, a home location register (HLR) 120, a visitor location register (VLR) 135, a serving mobile switching center 115, a network 110, and a destination device 130. Ordinarily, a SMS message may originate from the sending device 105 and end at the destination device 130. For example, a SMSC 125 may receive the message and query an HLR 120 for location info. Based on this location information received from the HLR 120, the SMSC 125 may proceed to forward the SMS message to a serving mobile switching center (MSC) 115 (as identified by the location info), whereby the message can ultimately be delivered to the destination device 130.
However, in the event the destination device 130 is unavailable, conventional SMS systems constrain signaling such that messages may be sent to devices that cannot receive them, resulting in retries that consume bandwidth. For example, if a destination device 130 resides in a coverage area of a remote VLR 135, but is unable to receive a SMS message, the message will propagate to the serving MSC 115 and, upon delivery failure, the MSC 115 will notify the SMSC 125 but not the HLR 120. While the SMSC 125 may report the failure back to the sending device 105, the next retry to send the message will result in the same sequence of events and use of bandwidth between the SMSC 125 and serving MSC 115. This retry is caused in part because, while a notification that the device is not present has been received by the SMSC 125, no such message has been sent to the HLR 120. Thus, the HLR 120 is unaware of the unavailability of the destination device 130. Accordingly, in conventional systems, the HLR database is not updated based on the SMS return codes. As a result, multiple reattempts may occur, each consuming network bandwidth.
For the above reasons, there currently exists a need in the art for a more effective system and method for conserving bandwidth in situations where a SMS message is undeliverable.